what I'm suggesting is that the legal definition of fraud is different from the perceived common use of the word.

It would seem that people use the word 'fraud' in cases where arts are advertised as something they are not...UNLESS the person making the claim is a nice guy. THEN it's not considered fraud if the person is liked.

also, another scenario that has come up before is lets say a student is an unknowing victim of fraud...they truely believe they learned a 5000 year old Korean battlefeild art called 'Wonder-do' or whatever in just the same condition, deadly, everything intact thru direct lineage, etc etc...they proudly display their smudged laser-printed certificates written in 1st grade level Japanese (even though it's a Korean art) - etc - they are oblivious....but they are a good person.

is that 'fraud'? someone with more than a 75 IQ looking at the credentials for 30 seconds would instictively say, that is complete and utter fabricated junk, and quick to label it fraud. ...but someone knowing the person to be a nice guy might be suceptable to overlook the preposterous claims and not categorize it as fraud at all, since they know it's not with malicious intent that the nice guy is passing on what was defrauded unto him while honestly thinking he/she is passing on something 'true' but in reality, a fabrication.

in short, it seems if they don't know any better and if they are nice...then it's not perceived as fraud.